Why Evolution is science

Science: The systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement.
(The Collins English dictionary)It is obvious that science involves observation. But even more so, it deals with the physical. Science will never observe God, or spiritual things.For this reason religion is not science. Religion is solely a spiritual thing. Does this mean it is falsified since science is unable to test it? I do not believe so. This just points to the limitations of science.Faith: Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (Hebrews 11)Ask yourselves this: How can someone be certain and how can someone be sure? EVIDENCE! Any Christian must have faith, but this faith cannot be blind. It must be based on evidence. List of evidence: The Bible, design, beauty in nature, concepts, equations/constants.Romans 1:18-20
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities”his eternal power and divine nature”have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.We are without excuse, evolution is a theory not based on scientific fact, but based on a philosophy to explain things without God.For evolution is not something we observe, the many examples given by evolutionists are examples of natural selection, not evolution (there is a difference between the two). The big bang is not observed presently, merely we observe evidence of expansion:
Isaiah 42:5
This is what God the LORD says” he who created the heavens and stretched them out...
Isaiah 40:22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,Think of all the Nobel prizes won by scientists because they observed equations... they just observed the equations that were already there. What about God? He created them. Or is it more scientific to believe the equations came about by chance? In that case lets give chance the Nobel prize!Surely it is more scientific to believe in a god. Since we observe design and its effect we should be to apply that to God's handiwork. How is it that we have lost our judgment to distinguish between chance and purpose-driven design?

quote:

---

The theory of evolution predicts that whatever the mechanisms of heredity, the hereditary factors should be subject to change during or before transmission to the next generation. In other words, evolution predicts genetic mutations.

---

I am a Creationists, I don't disagree with what you say, but creationism predicts genetic mutations as well. Here is how:After the fall into sin, God cursed the world. Hence, everything is in a degenerative state. Which is what we observe. So I can say the Bible predicted genetic mutations, decease, earthquakes, and the whole slew of 'bad' things.But evolution predicts mutations that gain information. For example, a human growing feathers instead of hairs. Now, if we had such examples, evolution would have a strong case, but I do not know of an example given by evolutionists that provide a mutation that somehow generates new information. And careful study must be made of such examples, for many of them are actually of natural selection of a mutation that destroyed a function which enables an organism to survive, but it still is a degenerative mutation since the organism lost something.Some examples given by evolutionsts are:
-Ancon sheep, (sheep with shorter legs). (mutation that destroyed information to build cartilage and bones in certain areas of the legs)
-Beetles losing their wings, (mutation that destroyed information to produce wings)
-eyeless fish,(again a loss of information)
-hox genes, (a misdirection of information --> producing two heads or growing a leg somewhere where it is not supposed to be).
-sickle cell decease, (again a loss of information that is beneficial in certain areas where malaria is a danger)Even though some of these mutations are beneficial and can be argued to say that this is how evolution works, it still is not the example required for a single cell to evolve to humans. On the other hand all these examples fit well within a creationist view point. The earth and creation is groaning because of the fall in to sin at the beginning due to God's curse.

---

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28

Great! lead me to some examples? Just to make sure you are talking about evolution, not natural selection?

Thanks for your reply, I think this forum will help me better understand the evolutionists point of view. I will start by your suggestion, define evolution and natural selection as I see it and you can judge on what I am doing wrong.I believe natural selection happens. I do not believe evolution happens. I also believe speciation happens. I do not believe evolution happens.Right now you might say I am contradicting myself. Let me explain:
Natural selection, the selection of genes/allelles(or whatever scientific name we have for the information being selected for) that benefits the organism. This involves the loss of some other information (Hence the selection). The key part is, that natural selection selects from existing information. That is, natural selection does not imply evolution (I will get to this definition in a moment). An example, the poodle is a mutated dog that can be traced back to a dog 'kind' that was on the Noah's ark. Not all dogs we know today had to be on the ark. The dog representative (a wolf kind?) had the information for all the dogs we know of. As environments change, and generations of mutations that loses information, different kinds of dogs appeared. ( I think the poodle is at its end of the gene pool for selection, the poodle is one dog with many problems).Speciation happens when enough information has deteriorated so that interbreeding no longer occurs between other species of its 'kind'. So speciation has happened. I will talk more about what I believe about speciation after evolution is finished.The evolution theory also uses, and requires, natural selection. Natural selection is observed, it is a fact. But, evolution in my mind is the line of random mutations that lead to a new function previously not there. For instance, the scales of dinosaurs, over millions of years after building up the mutations, which natural selection selects, which turn in feathers (technically evolution is never finished, mutations continue to happen).Evolution includes ALL kinds of mutations whether good or bad. Good mutations are mutations that eventually lead to a new function. Bad mutations are mutations that result in a destruction of a function but can both be beneficial and harmful(depending on the environment and the effect it has on the creature). But a bad mutation does not eventually get replaced by a new function. The problem is that no mutation, or line of mutations, have confirmed the 'good' one. I am saying that no line of mutations will ever produce feathers, if no previous information for feathers were present. (Saying otherwise, is saying that random mutations and many years of natural selection will be able to do this. This type of example has not been observed, and never will be according to creationism.)So what type of examples do we have today? I believe that mutations exist that can be beneficial and can be selected for. This is acceptable within creationism. But these type of mutations are destroying functions that hampers the organism given a certain situation. But in the end, this loss of function/information, cannot be regained by lots of random mutations. Loss of information can only be regained by breeding of same species with the information/function desired or inserting it in artificially.So when we have mosquitoes that are resistant to DDT, that is because there were already mosquitoes present that were resistant, but they were selected for when the situation presented itself(spraying of DDT). But this is natural selection, not the kind of evolution that creationists have a problem with.Speciation can also occur by gaining new functions so that it no longer can be classified in its previous species type. (dino to bird evolution) But this speciation, I believe, does not occur.I will stop for the moment, no one likes to read so much in one go.
I look forward to your reply.

---

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur,” Feduccia says. “But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ”paleobabble’ is going to change that.”Allan Feduccia, Professor of biology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms”, Science, Vol. 259, 5 February 1993, p. 764

Hello everyone, again...There still seems to be some misunderstanding of what I was trying to say. But in general I think we all came a few steps forward from where we last left off to a understanding. (not quite there yet). I am not certain if most people agree with that. But I believe creationists can accept this as true. As long as you are saying that birds have something in common with dinosaurs that can put them in that same kind. However, birds did not spring up from dinosaurs without wings. Since this requires new functions, as in instead of forelegs, we now get wings. Actually, I believe I have the evidence for this on my side. It is the random processes that create information that lacks any evidence. For where do we see information being randomly assembled? Nowhere. Information can only come from other sources of information (like intelligence). Which we see all the time. (engineers making new designs, cell duplication, us chatting right here on evc, etc). This is what makes the claims we as creationists make science, the very thing we are dismissed for. The claims are full fledged science, the implications are religious.A few answers for you platypus.
-I believe the earth is about 6000 years old, give or take a few.
-Archaeopteryx, I am no expert, but it looks like a dinosaur with feathers, and maybe able to fly. So a flying dinosaur... But I do not believe this causes it to be a 'missing' link. Correct, But I do not draw the line, God drew the line. He decided how much information is present in the species. To find the limit we must use experiments to see how far a species can diversify. I believe there have been such experiments conducted with bacteria, and there is a boundary somewhere.Information, this is a good question, I will send you to a different source
Information, Science and Biology | Answers in Genesis
Dr. Werner Gitt has the paper on that one. It is not too hard to read. Maybe I missed something here, I do not see how this is an example of the 'good' mutations. For what we see here is this:
The snakes may have not required additional body parts, but there is something called information that is different in these snakes than regular ones. These snakes have the information to grow bones and muscles differently to allow themselves to flatten in this way. Even if this is not required, information is required to enable the snake to tell when it needs to flatten itself, but also something needs to tell the snake that it has the ability to do this to its body in certain conditions. There are layers upon layers of information that is 'invisible' to the naked eye that most people forget. You have not shown that this additional information is caused by natural selection, but is merely assumed. I as creationist claim that God has created this information in the beginning the original snake kind. (There may have been more than one snake kind that God created at the beginning).

---

We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation. Information, Science and Biology | Answers in Genesis

So it seems it is difficult for me to explain myself, for I seem to confuse everyone when I mention information. Everyone operates on a basis of some understanding, for instance, the english language. We use it all the time. We assume that we agree with the definitions of the words we use. Likewise, when I use information, think of it as information, a code, language, or anything that conveys a message from a sender to recipient. DNA is like that. English is like that. A computer code is like that. Information. For instance; information to build a foot is different than that information for making a hand. However there are similar coding in both instances. Bone is common in both, skin, veins, capillaries, in fact all physical systems in a hand and a foot are similar. What is different is the information that locates the bones, veins, and skin. The sizes of nails, fingers/toes are different. We can perform science on how much information is present in certain systems. Scientists have shown that DNA is the most densely packed piece of information we have available to us at the moment. You know the four letters they use? T,G,C,A I believe. It is like a binary system in a computer. It is information.
Information to build everything of that living thing. Therefore it is common sense to say that a human being will have more information in their DNA that is useful than a single celled organism that has less functions.So here is the problem with mutations causing more information. That is, information to build a hand over time, when previously there was no information for it in the DNA. First you need some mutation in the DNA when it gets copied to start with the location of where this new hand will form, again, it does not mean I believe the hand has to be completely there. Just a mutation in the DNA of where a hand is supposed to start. Then you need a mutation to tell it how many hands, a mutation to start with the blue print. Then you need mutations that need to make switches on when to stop growning etc. Again, some of these mutations need to be copying errors for a foot lets say. But all in all you need a lot of mutations, but also simultaneous errors that need to work together. For instance you need the hand to grow straight. If it grows crooked, you need a special feed back system in place to tell it to grow the other way etc... anyways, this problem is similar to a problem a human engineer faces. However, there are no engineers floating around in the DNA, nor is evolution, natural selection or chance, or random a engineer. If you observe the world around you, you realize that by saying that natural selection in hand with random mutations in the DNA produces this complex system? This is not a case where the problem gets tough and we call in God to explain things. No ,this is a case where scientifically it is not sound to think this way. Information does not assemble like that. No example you give will show this.The example of the wings, no wings, wings, no wings, is a case where a switch is turned on or off for making wings or stop making wings. That is not a increase or decrease of information. Just some switching that is not an improbable event to occur. The information for wings was there with all those generations, some did not use it, others did.And more on information. It is not a new concept, but definitely a new field in science that is a must. For we cannot ignore information, it is there. I was at university when this Christian with a PhD in Biology, and a degree in engineering that is conducting tests on what information is ( he was referring to Shannons information theory) but also on how to test when something is designed, and when something does not have enough information so that chance could possible be the source of it.Here is a page with a paper on information, by Wiliam A. Dembski (not the same Christian I was talking about).
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm

---

We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation. Information, Science and Biology | Answers in Genesis

I have to admit, I have thrown information around loosely, and assumed everyone would understand what I meant by it. I was wrong. It also seems I need some measurement system in order to determine if information was lost of gained, etc. Likewise, I have thrown and maybe intermixed the term function along with information.We all believe that evolution states that all life as we know it came form a single celled organism long ago. This single cell was the most basic and primitive self-reproducing cell. Random point mutations along with natural selection over many generations has arisen to the multitude of more complex organisms we see today. I should be safe when I say, that most of those mutations added, or contributed, to more information. For instance, the primitive cell had just enough information to self-reproduce and do the functions a cell might need to do. But it did not have the information of a hand, or a horn, or even bone itself. So it is safe to say that we as humans have more information in our DNA than the DNA of that single cell. I have not quantified information, but I would suggest that our DNA strand is a bit longer than the one of that basic cell. I'm sure we could measure the difference based on how many four letter chains there are in DNA. This would, in effect, be measuring information relative to different DNA.As platypus pointed out, creationists who accept the Bible in a straight forward way, believe the opposite happened. All the information was created in the beginning. But we also believe that the Bible says that all this was distributed along the different 'kinds' of animals. Therefore, flying snakes were there at the beginning. So, I will never say that a single celled organism existed in the beginning with all the information build into it. The Bible says that God didn't. The Bible says God created the different kinds to reproduce after their kind. Therefore, snakes will never reproduce, and after a long chain of mutations, turn into lions, or whatever creature that has information that never was there to begin with.So, I agree that there was probably an original snake kind with all the information needed to form the snakes we observe today. In fact I will say that there was more information in the beginning, than we see today. (some snakes may have died out, some structures may have been lost, look at the curse God put on the serpent, this suggests that snakes had legs before, but God put him on his belly to crawl on the ground. Snake Evolution - Photos of Vestigial Hind Limbs on Snakes ). Not true, after Noah's flood, conditions would be ripe for rapid speciation. At least that is the theory that creationists use. Evidence for it? See:Just a moment... Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
(Creationists site, but use references from evolutionists as well.) Information is not created, but an error in placement is made. Therefore the information of where it is supposed to go is either damaged or changed. But is not the type of change to go from single celled organism to a evolutionists like your self. Like wise, just because there are vertebrae added, does not mean more information. Just a growth inhibitor is damaged or changed reusing information that was already there to build the vertebrae. Platypus will know what I mean.As for you RAZD, what do units do you want me state information as?
My units that I use are: a hand, or a foot, vertebrea, a head. If an organism did not have a head before and was able to survive, and reproduce until a long, long ways down the road an offspring finally manages to have a head, don't you think that the information increase is quantified as a head? Maybe a numerical value will be given to such a head when the information theorists are done.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

I used Werner Gitt's information theory to explain the definition of information.
Information requires:A capacity of the medium, or the frequency of the symbols used within this information system (statistics).There needs to be a meaning behind each of the symbols used within that system (semantics).The special arrangements of the symbols, like grammar or spelling (syntax).This code needs to have an audience, that is, needs be able to be decoded by an agent to perform the desired intent of this code (Pragmatics).The code has to have a purpose behind it, done through an agent (Apobatics). This agent can be any source, including the randomness, or chemical predestination. Or God. Information must have at least these 5 qualities. So, in a DNA strand the information is made up of:
1) Statistics - the space that is filled with one of the four letters within this DNA alphabet ( T,G,A,C).2) Semantics - T,G,A,C have special properties that differentiate one from the other, that is each has a special meaning within this information system.3) Syntax - the order/arrangements (grammar, spelling) of these four letters makes a difference on what the message is.4) Pragmatics - The cell as a whole acts out the messages contained within this DNA strand. The cell itself being there shows tha5) Apobetics - There is a purpose to the messages in this DNA strand, to build the cell, regulate its functions etc. This purpose is fulfilled by pragmatics.So, this is what information is described by Werner Gitt. This is the definition of information I meant all along. He will say that Apobetics point to God, who has put the purpose there. But in evolutionary terms, it is the random point mutations couple with natural selection that put this information there.Now the task is to quantify this information.Assumption 1: all information is equal in value. Example, all sentences of the same length with no repetitive information or unnecessary characters (like two spaces in a row), have the same value.The first case is a simple DNA strand of length N, filled with information that is not repeated, or filled with unnecessary characters . This length of DNA has the maximum capacity of information. I will give it a value of X. We could count up the letters (T,G,A, or C) used or the spaces occupied (done by statistics) and use that as a number to represent the information content.Now, there is a 2nd DNA strand of length N. Except half of it is filled with non repeated information, or unnecessary characters. But the other half is filled with random letters, this half does not fit with the definition for information because it has no message that has a purpose to anything in that system, it has no syntax other than a random arrangement. This DNA strand has a value of X/2.Now let us apply this to evolution/natural selection.
If a mutation happens within a section that describes a protein, and this mutation destroys the meaning of a 'word' or a 'sentence', it will most likely upset the making of this protein when the RNA copies this error. Again, it all depends on the error checking within the cell, how well the cell can extrapolate to guess the original 'word' or 'sentence'. Let us suppose there is no error checking, then the protein will be non functional. (In computer code, one spelling mistake will upset the running of the program, usually there is a compiler that will catch this before the program is run). So there is a decrease in information, as this code that was originally meant to make a protein, now no longer can do this because the syntax no longer makes sense to the recipient (assuming no error fixing on the recipients part). Information is lost from the system.However, this piece of code remains in the DNA,(it is not considered information) and during the next generations, more and more mutations change the overall semantics of this code, and now after Z many generations this piece of code now codes for a different protein. It has the same length as the previous code for making the original protein. Now the amount of information is the same as before the first mutation. But information has been gained (first lost, then gained).It is this type of information gaining that I, and other creationists, believe NEVER happened in life.We believe mutations happen, however, information is always lost, but never gained by random mutations. Information can be gained in a species if introduced artificially, or by breeding with another of its kind that has additional information that overrides the mutated segment of DNA or add to the DNA itself.So, I have tried to come up with some theory of how we may quantize information. I hope this clears up a little more of what I was trying to say.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

Concerning my previous attempt to quantify information, there is something I need to add to make it more robust.In my examples, where we have information with value X, we can only compare with the same information system. That is, the DNA uses four symbols as part of its alphabet. But the same length of that DNA will contain more information than that system which uses only 2 symbols (like the binary system). To convert between systems, we need to add an additional parameter to compare different systems. For instance if we have a system 'A' that uses two symbols (binary 0,1), and a system 'B' that uses four symbols (DNA T,G,A,C) than we could multiply the capacity by the amount of symbols used in that system.The next example assumes that the slots are filled with what I have defined as information.Example, if we have 8 slots that can be filled with one character per slot. Then the amount of information in that system using system 'A' we get a maximum of 8 x 2 = 16 units of information. When we use system 'B' we get a maximum of 8 x 4 = 24 units of information.So system 'B' can hold more information than system 'A'.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

Hello platypus, I believe the first snake made was a flying snake as well. So I do not necessarily believe two snake kinds were made. One snake kind with all the information necessary to spread out to the ones we see today. This is how we explain species that seem to be phylogenetically related. You can view our view as a giant tree branching downwards, where the top kind is the original kind (the kind that came of the ark of Noah). So the top kind is the one with the most and all information in it that we see dispersed today.Edited by Confidence, : No reason given.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

Since we are discussing information.The atoms have electrons 'orbiting' them. The electrons also have a spin, either 'up' or 'down'. This is like a binary code.So information can be stored on atoms if we are able to detect what sort of spin the electrons have (possible future storage space?). How much information is required to build an ice crystal? Depends on the what the semantics and syntax are. What are the chemical properties that make it water a crystal. Temperature is also involved. This is a complex system. But scientists are still exploring the atom. Quarks, muons, particle/anti-particles... how far does it go?

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

Yes, that is what we believe. The answer we use is common design. Why throw a good mechanism of survival out the door when it will work for other kinds? Since we were not there at the beginning, most of this will be speculation. In the end, flying snakes were the parent snakes of all snakes, and other snakes lost the information or some switching happened.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

In the creationists explanation, all kinds come from the original kind. The prediction is that information always is lost, or deteriorates. http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/re1/chapter2.aspThe site goes on to explain the diversity we see today. To tie that in with: The prediction is that there was an original kind snake. The proof is not there, but can be seen on how the snakes multiply and how different kinds of snakes appear. An understanding of how information is rearranged or deleted at the DNA level is also important to discuss if evolutionists or creationists are correct.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

I agree, the meaning has changed, but my theory makes an assumption, that all information (like these two sentences) have the same value for information. One sentence is not more important than the other.The theory states that as long as the contents have information, defined by semantics, syntax etc. we can measure how much. My theory does not talk about what information is more valuable. Sure it does, natural selection decides which will survive if it has an impact. If the protein that , when it reads the first sentence, can act on it but cannot act on the second sentence since the meaning is changed, and the action that corresponds to the second sentence is not build into the protein, then that change is useless, and destructive. Unless you say that a mutation to build the protein that reads this segment is also changed along with the sentence in the same generation...

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

This information that is added is probably due to a mechanism designed to do just that, direct mutations in a certain direction. But this is only because of a mechanism in place. This does not explain the evolving from single celled organisms to humans. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.